Inclusion in every mainstream setting – 5 ways to make this vision a reality

Gary Aubin

Now is the time for bold reform.

And let me be clear: the direction of that reform is inclusive mainstream.

Bridget Phillipson, Nov 7^th 2024

I welcome this aim. It enacts families’ legal right to mainstream education. Without disrespecting the incredible work of the specialist sector, it can ease the very real pressure for special school places. It perhaps even represents the inclusive society many of us would hold as an ideal. But, clearly, it won’t just happen.

Many will remember the first time they read the hotly-anticipated SEND and AP Improvement Plan, when it was published in 2022. As the new government have done, the previous government emphasised the need for mainstream schools to meet needs (the word ‘mainstream’ is used 82 times in that document). And while few disagreed with the desired aim, it felt like there were big gaps in outlining the steps needed to achieve this.

I welcome the news that Tom Rees, Christine Linehan and ‘leading neurodiversity experts – including those with lived experience’ will be advising the new Government on the changes required to make this work.

The challenge is considerable. Many changes are needed if this is to work. Here, I outline five of the changes that might be needed, to deliver on successfully inclusive mainstream schools.

Reimagining the wider system

Many schools know exactly what their pupils need, but are working in a system that disincentivises them from delivering it. This might relate to elements of the OFSTED framework, concerns from a Headteacher about their school’s Progress 8 score, or pressure to cover curriculum content at pace before the May exam season.

Meeting needs in mainstream is partly about ensuring schools are free to make more of those good decisions for the pupils in front of them – perhaps a pupil needs a greater focus on personal development, a different qualification offer, an approach to assessment that is more meaningful to them, or a different conception of curriculum breadth.

Steps in this direction from OFSTED and from the Curriculum and Assessment Review are welcome, and will I hope support schools to do even more of what they know their pupils need.

Developing expertise

I’ve got real hope for what the SENCO NPQ can do to support SEND leadership. But clearly, for a truly whole-school ownership our pupils with SEND, it requires the development of all staff.

There are all kinds of excellent trainings available through NASEN and their partners, under the Universal SEND Services contract. Thousands of colleagues have been undoubtedly upskilled by the resources and opportunities they provide.

That said, 88% of teachers say they need more help to support their learners with SEND, in a recent Teachertapp survey:

Source: Teachertapp, June ‘24

And when asked how they could better meet needs, while the number one request is more TA support, the next 3 requests from teachers – time to plan, time for training and advice to help me meet needs– suggest that more is needed.

What if every staff member was given a properly funded ‘SEND hour’ each week, as additional PPA? What if teaching loads/contact time could be reduced, so that staff can properly focus on further developing their inclusive practice? These are tricky things to resource, and tough in the context of a recruitment shortage, but it would go some way to recognising that staff can’t thrive without changes that recognise the additional SEND need in their classrooms.

With a dedicated hour of additional PPA for all staff, schools could develop their own plans for supporting and upskilling their workforce, so that each week, every colleague is engaged in those things that can take a bit more time within SEND – some co-planning time with the SENDCO, time to read and talk through a piece of specialist advice, time to visit a colleague with some expert practice.

Sharing expertise

I would propose that almost every mainstream school in the country has pupils on its roll who formerly would have been educated in a specialist setting. I’d also propose that opportunities for mainstream settings to learn from specialist settings have largely not kept pace with this change.

That said, special schools themselves frequently go over their own capacity and have their own increasingly complex pupil cohorts. What capacity do specialist settings have to share the best of what they do, to upskill and support their local mainstream schools?

If that capacity isn’t there currently, that’s not to say it couldn’t be. If special schools are properly resourced to support their local mainstream schools, providing the support and guidance that means more pupils can thrive in mainstream, how freeing that could be for the system.

And where mainstream settings have excellent models of inclusion, how are they supported and incentivised to exemplify their practice and to share generously, for the good of the wider system? This might be about local champions or regional hubs, to show other mainstream settings what their own approach could look like. It might be about some of the models of practice-sharing and leadership development developed by Whole Education, CST or Ambition Institute, for example.

It could be about local authorities facilitating networks of schools and SENDCOs, who meet regularly to share practice and move forward together, learning from each other’s provision in a spirit of positive cooperation. Whole Education also work in this space.

Investment

There is no shying away from this needing money. But the greater point is about spending money in the right way, spending it early, and spending it in ways that ensure the commitment to mainstream can be done well.

Think of all those mainstream settings who have taken charge of their changing cohort, by opening their own resourced provisions, for example. Typically, schools are given additional resource if they’re opening a resource provision alongside their local authority. What does this look like when schools are now ‘going alone’ with such provisions?

Where is the opportunity for schools to apply for capital investment to build or to re-purpose a building, through a SEND buildings ‘pot’, or to pay for their staff to receive additional specialist training?

This might start by ringfencing and topping up the SEN notional budget, so that more specialist needs are genuinely met in mainstream, without compromising what that child would have received in a specialist setting.

It might mean placing specifications on how some of the SEN notional budget must be used, including for training and supporting staff. It might mean ensuring schools publish how they’re using their SEN notional budget to upskill and support their own workforce, signed off by a Headteacher and Governors, and monitored through inspection.

Research

I’ve leaned heavily on research evidence to develop my own understanding of how settings might approach supporting pupils with SEND. Resources from the EEF, the CEEDAR Center in Florida and David Mitchell’s excellent book on the topic are some of my ‘go to’ resources. But there’s more we could do, surely. More research we could invest in, so that schools are supported to know what the research evidence suggests about SEND leadership, meeting a wide range of needs, creating the right learning environment or supporting positive learning behaviours, and more besides.

This list will no doubt have many omissions. But it may also provide hope around how inclusive mainstream schools can be not just the reality for some and the aim for many, but can become the reality for all.

References:

Evidence Summary: SEND – Teacher Tapp

Gary Aubin is an independent SEND Consultant working for Whole Education. He also sits on the Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review panel and is the author of The Lone SENDCO.